f^^^/ 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




00144199169 ^ 



F 257 
.D26 
Copy 1 



^ Jtutrg in Solonial Sist0rB< 



I liave long been persuaded that the civil commotion 
which is known in our history as Carey's Rebellion has 
never been fairly treated; that the historians, deriving all 
their information from the government party, and treading 
closely in each others footsteps, have told only the story 
of that party, and have greatly misrepresented the motives, 
tlje chaiacters, and the actions, of the men who were opposed 
to it. And I have desired, when time and opportunity 
should serve me, to undertake a careful examination of 
the subject in the hope, if possible, to undo some of the 
wrong of the historians. The present address is intended 
only as an introduction to that more serious work, and its 
object is to start a new train of thought, and prepare the 
way for it, by showing, hrst, how little reliance is to be 
placed on the histoiical accounts ; and secondly, the true 
characters of some of the leading men who were engaged 
in that rebellion. I have called it a study in our history ; 
and I have used the word "study" advisedly. For it is 
the student only, and not the casual reader, who can 
understand the difficulty of forming an opinion on which 
the mind can rest contentedly in regard to many impor- 
tant events in our early history. The mere reader sees 
with the eye of faith, and easily finds some authority which 
he accepts without question. But the student will en- 
deavor to understand conditions, and to analyze and 
weigh testimony. And then his troubles will begin. No 
candid man can read the history of our State under the 
proprietary government, and especially during the periods 



4 A STUDY IN COLONIAL HISTORY. 

of civil commotion, without an uneasy feeling that he is all 
the time hearing onlj^ one side, and that side the one which 
is most unfavorable to our people. He sees men accused 
of great crimes, unsparingly condemned, and denounced 
as "enemies of order," "rebels," "incendiaries," "rogues," 
and "rioters." And, again, he sees the same men not 
only going unpunished, but receiving the highest marks of 
public favor, filling with approbation the most important 
offices in the public service, and founding families which 
have always been, and are to this day, as high in the 
general esteem as any in the State. And he is left to ex- 
plain the anomaly in the best way he can Perhaps the 
historians are not altogether to blame. There was no 
printing press in the colony— for which, in Virginia, that 
bitter old tory, Gov. Berkeley, devoutly thanked God— and 
therefore no means of spreading and preserving important 
intelligence. Family records and private correspondence 
had, in a great measure, perished before history began her 
work. And all that was left were the records of the pro- 
prietors in England, and of their government officials in the 
province. And these were not often the best evidence of 
impartial truth. The proprietors were three thousand 
miles away, with only rare and difficult means of commu- 
nication. It was not easy for them to discern the truth 
and put the blame where it justly belonged, had they been 
ever so desirous to know the right and redress the wrong. 
But, in truth, they concerned themselves with but little 
beyond their quit-rents and revenues ; and a great part of 
the troubles grew out of their own^ui:)ine indifference. 
Having given to the colonists a magnificent model from the 
closet of a philosopher by which the wilderness was to 
be governed with all the splendors of the East, they con- 
sidered that they had done their whole duty, and seldom 
interfered in matters of government except to send out 
bad governors as occasion offered. And when they did 
interfere it was only to make things worse. And the 



A STUDY IN COLONIAL HISTORY. d 

colonists thus left to themselves naturally fell into divis- 
ions, and began, first to dispute, then to quarrel, and 
finally even to fight, among themselves. Whichever side 
first got the ear of the proprietors had the best chance of 
prevailing, especially if it happened to be their own repre- 
sentatives. And what is more serious now, whosesoever 
memorials chanced to live made history. 

The actors in civil commotions are never impartial wit- 
nesses ; and when, as in our accounts of Care 3^' s, if not of 
Culpepper's, rebellion, ic is apparent that only one side 
has been heard, a love of truth will drive the candid mind 
to reject authority, and question conclusions. But whither 
shall we go for light? If it be not too late now to hope 
that any search would furnish additional testimony, yet 
any efficient search is beyond the power of most of us. 
We are forced to rely on a stud}^ and comparison of the 
historians. And happy shall we be if we are not com- 
pelled to resign our faith in them because of their uncon- 
cealed mistrust and contempt of each other. 

That I have not s^^oken rashly let these examples show. 

No historian of the colonial times, except Chalmers 
perhaps, is more frequently cited, or has furnished to his 
successors more material for use, than the venerable Old- 
mixon. He was a faithful gleaner in a neglected field, and 
rescued from oblivion much that is valuable. But Hawks 
hits out straight from the shoulder, and demolishes him 
with a single blow. " Oldmixon signed the dedication in 
the first edition ; but many suppose that Herman Moll, 
who made the maps, wrote also the book. At all events, it 
contains almost as many errors as pages, and unsupj)orted 
is not to be trusted." (2 Hawks Hist., 481, note.) Now 
that is merciless enough ; but it is gentle in comparison 
with the sentence which he fulminates against Williamson. 
He does not pretend to conceal his contempt for that 
author, but rushes at him with a fire, not to say ferocity, 
that is quite unaccountable. "North Carolinians do not 



6 A 8TTTDY IN COLONIAL HISTORY. 

recognize Williamson's work as a history of their State. 
It is inaccurate in a great many particulars ; and some- 
times, as the present writer can testify, when there is 
pi oof that the original record was lying before him." 
(Id. f)40, note.) 

Gently now, Doctor. That is hitting below the belt ; 
and conscious power ought to be more generous. 

" O it is excellent 
To have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous 
To use it like a giant." 

The acknowledged difficulties of the task, which every 
writer and every student must feel profoundly, ought to 
win for the shortcomings of others the charity that all 
must need. Williamson's work is not of a high order of 
merit. It is brief and meagre, and the style is didactic and 
heavy. The charge of inaccuracy is not altogether unde- 
served ; but it contains not a little valuable information, 
and some that is not to be found elsewhere. Hawks him- 
self does not scruple to quote from him freely when it is 
to his purpose, even when he is unsupported. He de- 
serves consideration as the first adventurer in an unex- 
plored region. For Lawson's work was an account of the 
character of the country, and of the aboriginal inhabitants, 
rather than a history of our people. And with all 
Williamson's faults, we cannot aflford to have him prose- 
cuted to outlawry. Hawks seems to give most of his 
confidence to Chalmers, who, he says, "wrote w4th the 
original records before him." He cites him frequently, 
and with much apx^robation. But just as w^e are beginning 
to enjoy the relief of having found one author worthy of 
our trust, Bancroft comes up like a three-decker breaking 
the line, and pours in a deadly broadside. " The passage 
in Chalmers nearly resembles many similar ones in his 
volume. His account, in all cases of the kind, must be 
received with great hesitancy. The coloring is always 
wrong, the facts usually perverted. He whites like a 
lawyer, and a disa^Dpointed politician ; not like a calm 



A STUDY IX COLONIAL HISTORY. 7 

inquirer." (Hist. U. S. 2— 162— note 6.) There now! 
Whatever misgivings may be felt as to the other judgments, 
there can be none whatever about the justice of this one. 
Whoever, among a civilized people, and in a christian land, 
could be so lost to shame as to write like a lawyer, could 
never hope to be believed. 

Seeing, then, that the historians have so little faita in 
what is written, what is the student to do \ Is there none 
of them above reproach ? Not one whom we can undoubt- 
ingly accept as our teacher and master ? Let us not fear 
to scan the merits of those who have so freely judged each 
other, judging them always in the love of truth, and in 
charity. Hawks is the latest, and in some respects, the 
best of them. But even he must be studied and criti- 
cized, not accepted through faith. And, with a full sense 
of how much it becomes a student to speak with modesty 
and reserve of the labors of learned men, I dare venture 
the belief that, when the generation which has personally 
known and admired that historian shall have passed away, 
those who are careful to examine for themselves will find 
that, while he is always dogmatical in manner, he is not 
always either temperate in language, or just in judgment ; 
and that he is by no means clear of the same faults of 
carelessness and inaccuracy which he so vehemently con- 
demns in his predecessors. That this opinion is not haz- 
arded hastily and without warrant may be easily shown 
by a few examples. 

About the middle of the seventeenth century Sir John 
Yeamans planted a large colony, and founded a considera- 
ble town, on the Western bank of the Cape Fear river. It 
was a very important event, and is related by all the his- 
torians. Let us try and ascertain from Hawks the date ot 
its occurrence. ''On the 29th of May, 1664, the colony 
under Sir John Yeamans, consisting of several hundreds, 
landed on the banks of the Cape Fear, and commenced their 
settlement." (2 Hawks 83.) 



8 A STUDY IN COLONIxVL HISTORY. 

This is precise, if not acciii'ate. 

'' The Barb.'idoes adventurers had x)huited themselves on 
tlie Cape Fear in 1665/' (Id. 453.) 

''Besides, wlien were these instructions ^iven ? Not 
until January, 1664-5; this was after the grant bad been 
nuule to the Barbadoes adventurers, and cffter Cape Fear 
had been x>^cmted under Sir John Yeaman.s.'' (Id. 79.) 

"Their lordships declined compliance with their request; 
but such a grant was made as was satisfactory ; and in 
January, 1664-5, Sir John Yearnans, then a respectable 
])lanter of Barbadoes, was appointed by the prox)rietors 
governor and commander-in-chief of the new colony to he 
planted on the river." (Id. 81-82.) 

These conflicting statements leave us entirely at sea ; and 
it is only from the other historians we can learn that the 
true date of this settlement was the autumn of 1665. 

Take another important event in our history, the estab- 
lishment of our iN'orthern V)oundary. It had long been in 
dispute, and many titles depended on its determination. 

On page 93 he tells us — " When the line was run by the 
joint commission in 1729," &c. ; and on page 96— *'The 
parties met on the 5th of March, 1728, at Currituck Inlet," 
and again on page 98 — '' When the commissioners met in 
1729, Mosele}^ was again one of them." The flrst meeting 
of the commissioners, as appears from their journal, w^as 
on the 5th of March, 1729, and their work ended in Oc- 
tober of the same year. 

On page 144 he gives the year 1666 as the date of the first 
legislative assembly of the colony ; and gives it on the authori- 
ty of B. P. Moore, Esq. in the preface to the Revised Code of 
1855. This is inexcusable. The interesting historical sum- 
mary to which the writer refers was flrst X)ublished as the 
preface to the Revised Statutes of 1837. It is signed by 
James Iredell and William H. Battle, is copied word for 
word, except the signatures, in the Code of 1855, and is 
entitled there— "Preface of the commissioners of 1833." 



A STUDY IN COLONIAL HISTORY. 9 

We have seen the hot indignation with which he assails 
Williamson for inattention and inaccuracy with the record 
lying open before him. 

Dare we sny, Physician heal thyself? 

In discussing the complicity of Tobias Knight, the Secre- 
tary of the province, in the guilt of the pirate Teach, better 
known as Blackbeard, he says: "There is another fact 
mentioned by Williamson, for which he cites no authority, 
and for which among our manuscript records we have seen 
none. It is this — that of the cargo of the French ship, 
said to have been found abandoned, twenty barrels of 
sugar and two bags of coffee were stored by Teach in 
Knight's barn. If this be so, it must be confessed it fur- 
nishes a proof of complicity on Knight's part the force of 
which it is difficult to evade." (2 — 278.) 

Our people have always felt a painful interest in this 
shameful subject. Is it true, or not, that their Governor 
and Secretary were' the accomplices of a notorious pirate, 
and the sharers in his wicked gains ? Now here is an alle- 
gation of proof upon the existence or non-existence of 
which, as it is intimated, must depend the judgment of 
posterity as to the guilt or innocence of Knight ; and the 
point is coolly dismissed with an "if," and left to depend 
altogether on the bad character which the writer himself 
has given to Williamson. "Your if is the only peace- 
maker; much virtue in //"." 

Now the question was at the time considered so serious 
as to call for an investigation before the governor and 
council ; and the record of their proceedings, and of the 
evidence taken, has been preserved. This record is given 
as an appendix to the first volume of Martin's history 
which Hawks had before him when he wrote, for he quotes 
from it. And on page YI is the statement of " Captain 
Ellis Brand, commander of his majesty's ship the Syren," 
that having received information of twenty barrels of sugar 
and two bags of cotton (which is perhaps a mistake in 



10 A STUDY IK COLONIAL HISTORY. 

copying for coffee) lodged by Teach at the house of Knight, 
he demanded them as part of the cargo of the French ship; 
and Knight with many asseverations denied tliat any snch 
goods were abont his phmtation ; bat next day when 
Brand again urged the matter home upon him, and told 
him of the proofs he could bring, Knight owned the whole 
matter, and the piratical goods were found in his barn 
covered with fodder. And Knight's own statement is given, 
in which (Appx. X) he says he never denied the sugar was 
in his custody, but alleged that he made no claim to it, bat 
it was only lodged there at the request of Teach until a 
more convenient store could be procured. But stranger 
still — I have myself examined the volume in the Secretary 
of State's office which contains the record of the proceed- 
ings of the council from 1712 to 1728, from which Hawks 
makes copious extracts. I saw everywhere traces of his 
work, and on page 181 I found the statement of Capt. 
Ellis Brand substantially, and almost literally, as it is 
given by Martin. And all this escaped the attention of 
Hawks. It would really seem that he despised William- 
son so heartily as to cool the ardor of his search, and dim 
the clearness of his vision. 

One more instance will conclude this part of my subject. 

In the note to page 540, in which he so cruelly assails 
Williamson, he says — "Williamson, for instance, has no 
authority that we can find for saying that Barnwell desired 
to throw the odium of the Indian war on H3^de, hecause 
Tie coveted liis place of governor ^^ — the italics being the 
author's. I do not know what authority Williamson had 
for the statement ; but I do know that Hawks himself had 
evidence which would have convinced him of its truth, if 
he had judged Barnwell in the same spirit in which he 
judged Carey's friends, and which ought certainly to have 
saved Williamson from such bitter denunciation. Of all 
the private testimony which he has examined he seems to 
value most that of Col. Pollock. He loves to praise him. 



A STUDY IN COLONIAL HISTORY. 11 

and to hold lip his conduct of affairs to our admiration. 
On pages 415-485 — he publishes extracts from his letters to 
the Governor of South Carolina, in which Pollock inti- 
mates very plainly his belief of dark and dangerous deal- 
ings between Edward Moseley and Col. Barnwell ; charges 
directly that Moseley was the chief cause of the difference 
between Gov. H\de and Barnwell ; and that he "endeav- 
ored all he could to blacken Gov. Hyde's administration, 
thereby to change the government ; being, as may be 
reasonably imagined, in hopes that such an address as he 
had procured from our Assembly to send to the lords 
proprietors in favor of Col. Barnwell, might be an induce- 
ment to them to grant Mm the administration ; and then 
they two, with the interest of the Quakers, who are the 
chief moulders of the Assemblies here, might have carried 
matters on here at their pleasure." 

Let it not be thought that these strictures are designed 
to depreciate the real merits of Hawks' work. I am far 
from any such purpose or wish. It is the nearest approach 
we have to a full account of the proprietary times, of which 
alone it treats. It does not content itself with a dry detail 
of facts and events ; but in language always strong and 
nervous, often rising to eloquence and beauty, it aims, and 
not w^ithout success, at one of the highest offices of history 
— to i3aint for us men and manners as they were. It has- 
passed the ordeal of public opinion and stands an enduring 
monument of the industry, ability, and learning of the 
author, and of his loving devotion to his native State. 
And my only object is to protest against considering him 
infallible, and assigning to him, any more than to the rest, 
that ultimate, dogmatic authority in our history, which is 
to cut off all appeal, and preclude all inquiry, and all right 
of individual judgment. It is the most valuable feature 
of his work that he frankly spreads the testimony before 
his readers, invites their scrutiny, and boldly submits to 
their judgment the justice of his conclusions. And so the 



12 A STUDY IN COLONIAL HISTORY. 

reader, having the same means of forming his own judg- 
ment, will only wrong himself by a too facile submission 
to authority. 

These preliminary observations, if not necessary, are a 
proper and useful introduction to the subject I propose to 
discuss — Carey's rebellion, and its connection with the 
Indian war which followed it in 1711-12. 

In an interesting article on " Early Times in the Caro- 
linas," published in the July number, 1879, of the South 
Atlantic^ the learned writer has examined the same subject. 
I always welcome with eagerness, and read with pleasure, 
every intelligent effort to add to our knowledge of the 
early history of our State, and especially wdien it comes 
from the pen of so having a son of Carolina. But there is 
one allegation of this article to which I do not assent, and 
which I cannot suffer to pass without challenge. 

Speaking of the Indian war, it says — "The universal 
voice of history now ascribes this insurrection to the in- 
trigues of Thomas Carey, formerly Governor of the colony, 
and to the Quakers of Albemarle, under the leadersliip of 
a man named Roach, assisted by John Porter, Edmund 
Porter, Edward Moseley, Peter Tillet and Emanuel Low." 

Thus the writer gives point and personality to this grave 
charge, and designates by name the wicked men who are 
to be consigned to ignominy as the real authors of all the 
calamities and horrid atrocities which followed the Indian 
outbreak. If this accusation be just it covers with shame 
the Quakers of North Carolina, brands with infamy one of 
the foremost men of our early history, and casts the 
shadow of a great crime over some of the oldest and most 
honorable families of the Cape Fear and of the State. 

After a careful study of all the evidence I cannot believe 
it to be true in any of its particulars. 

The writer, in taking Hawks as his guide, has, inadver- 
tently no doubt, gone beyond his authority in the sweep 
of his accusation. And to say that this is the universal 



A STUDY I]^ COLONIAL HISTORY. 13 

voice of history is not complimentary to the pretensions of 
that historian. For he claims for himself all the merit of 
the discovery, and felicitates himself that thereby he is 
enabled to explain some things which had been a puzzle 
to his predecessors. (2-52H.) It is not easy to ascertain 
with certainty from Hawks' narrative who are the persons 
on whom he means to fasten the responsibility for the 
Indian massacre. One of the most certain things about 
it is, that he did not intend to accuse Edward Moseley ; and 
one of the most probable is, that he did not intend to 
accuse the Quakers generally. Care must be taken all 
through his account not to confound complicity in Carey's 
rebellion, with complicit^y in the Indian massacre. They 
are very distinct things ; and in my judgment the two 
events have no connection with each other, except in so far 
as the former may have afforded to the Indians an oppor- 
tunity which they thought favorable for the execution of a 
vengeance long plotted in secret. 

Let us see now what the historian says. 

In defending Col. Barnwell against the charge of having 
committed certain atrocities against the Indians, he ex- 
presses his own opinion thus — "We believe they were 
instigated by the same men who first incited the Tusca- 
roras to the massacre — the adherents of the Carey /actio iiy 
(2-542.) 

This is very much like what John Wilkes said of the 
general warrant under which he was arrested— that "it 
was a warrant against all the people of England." When 
we remember that the adherents of Carey were a majority 
of the people of the CoJony, to suppose that he meant to 
charge every one of them with this crime would be to 
attribute to him a wild generality which would make the 
allegation worthless. And in all fairness his words must 
be qualified and restrained by the more specific allegations 
which he makes elsewhere. 

"Carey and John Porter, therefore, according to the 



14 A STUDY ITs^ COLOTSTXAL IIISTOKr. 

testimony of contemporaneous documents, may be consid- 
ered as the responsible authors of the dreadful Indian 
toar that began in 1711." (2-523.) 

This is specitjc enough. It leaves no room for misunder 
standing Carey and John Porter are the wretched mis- 
creants whom he singles out for judgment, and whose memo- 
ries are to be forever dishonored and hateful. 

But listen yet again. 

"Our researches, however^ have brought us reluctantly 
to the conviction^ expressed on a previous page, that a 
more potent cause than either of these was the direct 
agency of Carey, and perhaps of some of his adherents, 
especially of Roach, in instigating the savages to com- 
mence a war against such of the whites as were apposed to 
him." (2-526.) 

I appeal to every candid mind, unfettered by authority 
and accustomed to judge for itself, if allegations so vague 
and contradictory, come from whom they may, ought to be 
accepted as the voice of history. 

It does not concern me to defend Carey's reputation. 
Beyond the brief and fitful struggle in which he w^as the 
foremost figure he had no lot or part with us, "Like a 
bright exhalation in the evening," he came, and he departed^ 
and we know not either his origin or his end. But with 
some of his adherents, especially John Porter and Edward 
Moseley, it is very different. Of honorable men and 
women there are not a few among us who cherish their 
memories and must share in their shame ; and who are 
deei3ly concerned to know whether or not they have been 
wrongfully condemned. When men are accused of an 
atrocious crime it is of the utmost importance, in weighing 
the testimony, to know the character, position, and circum- 
stances of the accused. Our author affords us a striking illus- 
tration of this truth. He accepts with a hearty belief, and 
without qualification, every harsh word that is uttered by 
Spotswood, Hyde and Pollock, against Carey and his sup- 



A STUDY IN COLONIAL 1IIST0P.Y. 15 

porters. But he was born, as he tells us, near the scene of 
Barnwell's operations and knew that the tradition of the 
♦country had preserved a most respectful remembrance of 
Mm. And when the same witnesses begin to defame 
Barnwell, he quickly takes up his defence against their 
jealous suspicions, and warns us that their testimony may 
be colored by personal feeling and prej udice. (2-— 538-540. ) 
It is to be regretted that he was not guided throughout by 
the same discretion and charity. If we are to believe the 
report of th-eir enemies, nothing good could be said of 
•Carey's adherents. Incendiaries, rogues, rioters and rob- 
bers, a profligate rabble— such are the terms in which they 
are usually €haracterized, and which history has not scru- 
pled to perpetuate. Jack Cade and his licentious mob 
were not more wicked enemies of all that is worth preserv- 
ing in society and government. lam sure that the reverse 
of the picture, imperfectly as we can only see it now, will 
be a surprise to alL Of Edmund Porter, Tillet, Low and 
Roach, I know but little beyond what is related of them 
in history. But that is enough to show that they were 
men of importance and influence in the colony. But John 
Porter is peculiarly the object of reprobation. For him 
the historian sharpens his epithets and culls his bitter 
phrases. This " unscrupulous partisan "^ — " this renegade 
Quaker" — ^'this disgrace, not merely to the peaceful sect 
in which he was reared, but to humanity at large," such 
is the language which he deems not inconsistent with the 
judicial gravity and moderation of history. Evidently 
Hawks knew nothing of Porter except from the report of 
his enemies, and borrowed all of his shafts from their 
quiver. Let us endeavor to obtain a more just estimate of 
his character and actions. 

This name is flrst presented to us in history among 
the shameful records of injustice and wrong. Turn 
where he would in that day, the Quaker could not 
escape the fires of persecution. Driven from the old 



l(j A STUDY IX COLONIAL HISTORY. 

world, lie landed in Massachusetts, and was welcomed 
with imprisonment and stripes. Fleeing from the Puri- 
tans there, he sought asylum with tlie cavaliers and 
churchmen of Virginia, and found no friends '* Virginia, 
as if resolved to hasten the colonization of North Carolina, 
sharpened her laws against all sex:>aratists," (2 Banc. 202) 
and punished them with fines, imprisonment and banish- 
ment. One only hope remained. In the solemn forests, 
by the grand inland seas of iSortli Carolina, there dwelt a 
people, few in number, but "freest of the free;" planted 
by no government's care, sustained by no government's 
aid, but governing themselves with prudence and modera- 
tion, and in matters of religious faith asking no questions 
for conscience sake. And soon the tide of emigration over- 
flowed the border and si3read itself along the shores of 
Albemarle. 

In September 1603, John Porter, being a member of the 
Virginia House of Burgesses for Lower Norfolk, was ex- 
pelled from the assembly " because he was well affected to 
the Quakers." (2 Hening 198. ^ And joining the peace- 
ful current which was setting Southward, he pitched his 
tent in our "summer land;" and in his new home, most 
probably in the county of Perquimans, was born his son, 
John Porter, the subject of this sketch. His early life is 
hidden from us in the obscurity of the times ; but very 
early in the eighteenth century he began to take an active 
and prominent part in the affairs of the province. In 1704 
that absurd and wicked effort was made to set up a state 
religion in a wilderness where there was neither church 
nor jniest. "And this I am satisfied in" said Governor 
Archdale, " and have some exj)erimental reason for what 
I say, that if the extraordinary fertility and jpleasantness 
of the country had not been an alluring and binding obli- 
gation to most dissenters there settled, they had left the 
high Church to have been a prey to wolves and bears, 
Indians and foreign enemies." (Car. Coll. 2-114.) But 



A STUDY IN COLONIAL IIISTOBY. 17 

being determined to stand by tlieir rew honae in the beau- 
tiful land, in 1706 they sent John Porter to England to 
present their gr evances to the proprietors and seek redress. 
He was successful in his mission; and returning in 1707, he 
became an active and influential leader in Carey's rebel- 
lion, and so opened for himself all tlie vials of the histo- 
rian's wrath. Of his after life history tells us only that he 
was a member of tiie celebrated legishiture of 1715, and 
was appointed on a committee with other prominent men 
**to represent the deplorable circumstances of the colony 
to the proprietors." (Mar, 1-277.) In 1723 two opposite 
currents of emigration, from Allx^marle, and from South 
Carolina, met upon the banks of the Cape Fear, and at 
last securely planted civilization there. With the tide 
from Albemarle, composed of Lillington's, Ashes, Mose- 
leys, Swanns, Harnetts, Vails and others, some to become 
famous, and many distinguished, in after days, about the 
year 1725 came John Porter and his family, as respectable, 
and as much respected, as any among them. Aad hei'e, 
about the year 1728, he died. 

His social position was of the very highest in his day. 
Major Alexander Lillington, grandfather of the hero of 
Moore's Creek, was "one of the oldest names in the prov- 
ince." (2 Hawks 502.) The oldest public record in the 
State is the commission issued in 1679 to George Durant, 
Alexander Lillington, and two others, to keep the peace in 
Berkeley Precinct, now Perquimans county. And in 1693, 
when the mode of appointing governors was changed, and 
a governor general was appointed to reside in the South- 
ern province, and a deputy governor for the Northern, he 
was made the first deputy governor of North Carolina. 
This gentleman had several daughters. Elizabeth married 
the Hon. Samuel Sw^ann "collector of her majesty's cus- 
toms in Roanoke," and member of the council; "who 
zealously promoted the interests of religion in general,'^ 
and who ^vas ''conspicuous among those who were chris- 



18 A STUDY IN COLONIAL HISTORY. 

tians indeed." (2 Hawks 807-349.) Ann married the Flon. 
Henderson Walker, who was fii'st Attorney General, and 
then Governor of Albf^marle in 1699, and who is one of 
the few North Carolinians on whom Hawks bestows 
iinqualitied praise. (Id. 502.) A third daughter, Sarrili, 
mari'ied John Porter; and John Porter's sister, Sarah 
Porter, married John Lillington, and was the mother of 
General Alexander Lillingron of the revolution. When 
North Carolina s»"nt forth her piteous cry for help in her 
struggle with the barbarous savages, and Col. James Moore 
came over in command of the forces so generously sent to 
her relief by her Southern sister, his younger brother, 
Maurice, came with him, holding a subordinate command. 
AVhen the Indians were subdued he settled in Albemarle, 
and ten years later he was the chief leader in the move- 
ment which resulted in the settlement of the Cape Fear, 
where he ever after resided and where he died. He was 
the son of Gov. James Moore of South Carolina, and the 
grandson of Sir John Yeamans ; and his character is well 
preserved in the family traditions of the Cape Fear. He 
was high-spirited and brave, quick to resent an affront to 
any issue, proud, and somewhat haughty ; but manly, 
frank, generous and true. Holding fast to all the tradi- 
tions of birth and race, he cherished, next to his personal 
honor, the honor of his family. 

This gentleman married the daughter of John Porter. 
And so the proud and sensitive soldier and gentleman, who 
llrst came to North Carolina to avenge the blood of her 
people so pitilessly shed, supi^lemented his work by mar- 
rying the daughter of "this disgrace to humanity," who 
was "the responsible author of the dreadful Indian war." 
So history pretends. 

From this union sprang the revolutionary patriots Judge 
Maurice Moore and General James Moore, and a daughter 
E-ebecca, who became the wife of General John Ashe. 

More than this — John Porter's son, of the same name^ 



A STUDY IX COLONIAL IirSTOIlY. 19 

mariied the dano;hter of Col Maurice Moore by another 
marriage; and Mary Poi'ter, the daughter of this union, 
niari'ied Governor Samuel Ashe, and became the motli^r of 
Col. Samuel Ashe, and of Col. John Baptista Ashe, who was 
also elected governor of the iState^ but died before his trrni 
of office commenced 

If ever a family deserved wvll of the State it is the 
family ot Ashe, which gave every grown male of the name, 
nine lighting men, \o defend her liberties in the perilous 
days of the revolution, and which, in every succeeding 
generation, has furnished to her service men of ability and 
worth. 

I well remember Colonel Samuel Ashe, the last of the 
revolutionary patriots of that name. I was the friend and 
companion of his younger sons; and it is one of the pleasairt 
memories of my yo'iith that 1 was intimate in his house. 
North Carolina never bred a finer gentleman, nor one who 
more completely commanded the love and reverence of all 
who knew him. Frank and loyal in all things, he was 
singular in his love of truth and in his lofty scorn of every- 
thing dishonorable or mean. I well remember too, his 
pride in his Porter ancestry, and his fondness for the name, 
which he gave to two of his children. 

The inexoiable Nemesis of history knows no atonement, 
and the great crime of an ancestor cannot be pardoned 
even to the virtues and services of men like these. It is 
just. But wdiat if history, or that which calls itself history, 
lias done an inexpiable wrong? Is it not the plain duty 
of every man who loves the truth, and believes that he 
knows the truth, to speak it bravely ? 

Here is Hawks' account at large — "Acting on the hint 
afforded by the hostility of the Meherrins, Carey dispatch- 
ed John Porter as an emissary to the Tuscaroras ; and 
Governor Spotswood states that he was in possession of 
several affidavits, sent to prove that this renegade Quaker, 
Porter, this disgrace, not merely to the peaceful sect in 



20 A STITDY IN COLONIAL HISTOKT. 

which lie was reared, but to hunianity at large, ''was witTi> 
t.hb Ticscaroni Indians, promising great rewards to incite 
tlipm to cut off all the iiiliabitants ot that part of Carolina 
that adhered to Mr. Hyde." (2-522.) 

Surely no man ought to be accused of a crime so horri- 
ble, in language so vindictive, except upon |)7x>of amounting 
nlmost to demonstration. And will it be believed that this 
accusation is made absolutely without proof? I will not 
ui'ge tliat Spotswood was a tory and high churchman : that 
the tory i^nd high churchman of Qneen Ann's time was 
an abject slave to tlie doctFine-s of divine right and passive 
obedience; that he hated a rebel only le&s than a Quaker,, 
and a Quaker only less than the father of evil ; and 
that to set such an one to judge a man v/ho was both a 
rebel and a Quaker is simply Jed wood justice — hang first, 
and try afterwards. Nor will I insist that Porter is con- 
demned unheard; that he is condemned on Spotswood' & 
inference from the affidavits of unknown persons, tlie con- 
tents of which affidavits are also unknowni. For all that 
would be to ''write like a lawyer," and would only be 
anathema. I simply affirm that Gov. Spotswood makes 
no such statement. His tv/o letters to the Council of 
Trade, and to the Governor of South Carolina, written on 
the same day, are the only authorities Hawks cites, and 
they are given at pages 422-425. They do not accuse 
John Porter. They speak only of "one Porter who is one 
of Mr, ('arey's pretended council;" and all the circum- 
stances point as clearly to Edmund Porter as to John. 
Both, by descent at least, were Quakers ; both had been 
sent to England in the interests of that people ; both were 
active adherents of Carey ; both w^ere members of his 
Council ; and both were excepted from the general pardon 
which was granted to Carey' s friends. Upon what warrant, 
then, does the historian fasten this shameful accusation 
upon John Porter 1 It were grave enough had it been 
done upon a mere inference from doubtful testimony. It 



A STUDY IN COLONIAL IIISTOIIY. 21 

is graver far that it is done in the very face of cogent pro )f 
to the contrary. For Martin, who liad access to all the 
records, expressly declares that it was Edmund Porter, 
not John ; (Mar. 1-240) and Hawks himself has testified to 
Martin's accuracy in the statement of facts wliich depend 
upon documentary evidence. (2-567.) 

I do not admit, because I do not believe, that Edmund 
Porter, to whom this accusation jjroperly attaches, was 
guilty of the crime. But that question depends upon con- 
siderations which are applicable alike to Carey himself, 
and all of his adherents, and which may, peihaps, be 
examined hereafter. My present purpose has been to 
vindicate the memory of John Porter, to whom JN'orth 
Carolina owes so longaline of worthy sons ; and the proofs 
are submitted to every candid mind. 

The prosecution of our subject brings us now to con- 
sider it in its relation to one who was truly one of the 
great men of North Carolina, and who is almost unknown 
to us only because he lived in the obscurity of that early 
time, and moved on a theatre too limited for the full dis- 
play of his powers. Of all the men who watclied and 
guided the tottering footsteps of our infant State, there 
was not one who, in intellectual ability, in solid and polite 
learning, in scholarly cultivation and refinemsnt, in courage 
and endurance, m high christian morality, in generous con- 
sideration for the welfare of others, in all the true merit, in 
fine, which makes a man among men, could equal Edward 
Moseley. My means of information have enabled me to 
do him only partial justice ; but I shall be happy if it shall 
be mine to make him known, even in part only, to his 
own people. 

Wliether or not he was born in Virginia is not known ; 
but I feel sure that he came from thence with that generous 
tide which swept across the border to the shores of Albe- 
marle, and probably about the year 1680. Like many 
others of that emigration, he was not driven by persecu- 



2'2 A STUDY IN COLONIAL HISTORY. 

tion, was not a sufferer for conscience sake ; for he was in 
accord with the establishment of Virginia in all but its 
devotion to royalty, and its absurd pretension to a domin- 
ion over the spirit of man. He came onl}^ for a better 
freedom, and bettei- liopes of fortune ; and he soon became 
prominent in all the ])ublic affairs of the province. He 
liist appears in history in 1700 as an active supporter of 
(,'aiey ; and being a member of the Assembly in that year 
lie was elected bipeaker. And from that time until his 
death he was almost (continuously in the public service in 
some high office or employment. In 1707 he was appoint- 
ed Chief Justice ot the province; and held the office for 
fonr years, when he was removed on account, no doubt, 
of his zealous support of Carey ; and Christopher Gale be- 
came his successor. During the same period, about the 
year 1709, being then Surveyor General, lie was appoint- 
ed, together witli his deputy, John Lavvson, to run the 
[Northern boundary line. After several meetings of the 
commissioners, the North Carolinians refused to proceed 
any further because of errors whicl\ the}^ discovered in 
the work of the Virginians. Whereat these last wei-e 
greatly disgusted. Tiiey thought this assumption of supe- 
rior knowledge and skill on the part of the Carolinians so 
absurd, that the}-^ did not scruple to accuse them of mean 
and interested motives; but Moseley remained firm, and 
the work was abandoned. (2 Hawks 94.) We shall see 
hereafter which of them were right. 

On the 17th of November, 1715, at the house of Captain 
Richard Sanderson, on Little Kiver, assembled that memora- 
ble legislature, which is the first of whose proceedings we 
have any record. This assembly did its work in a manner 
which has received the commendation of every succeeding 
generation of lawyers. It revised and re-enacted all the 
statutes, and passed many important new laws ; some of 
which, notably the statute of limitations, have, with some 
alterations, continued in force until the adoption of the 



A STUDY IN COLONIAL HISTORY. 23 

Code of Civil l^rocedine. Of this Assembly Moseley 
was chosen Speaker; and his great professional learnin*^ 
and ability had its full irilluence in siigi2;estiiig and shap- 
ing its wise legislation. He was also made ('hairman of 
the important committee which was appointed to memo- 
rialize the lords proprietors, and represent to them the 
deplorable circnmstances of the Colony. Observe, now, 
that this was more than four years after the supX)ressioii 
of Carey's rebellion, and the complete establishment of 
Gov. Hyde's anthority ; more tiian two years after the 
close of the Indian war and the destrnction of the power 
of the Tnscaroras ; and more than eighteen montlis after 
Gov. Eden, with the acqniescenc^e of all, had taken his 
seat as Governor. And dnringayear and a half of tliat 
time, from the death of Hyde to the accession of Eden, 
the administration of affairs had been in the hands of 
Moseley's known and determined enemy, Col. Pollock, as 
president of the Council. K Moseley was the criminal 
that history attempts to make him, how is it that we find 
him so soon tilling high positions of usefulness and honor? 
How is it that he was not languishing under punishment, 
or driven from society by the contempt and scorn of all 
good men ? 

In 1718, while the colony was ringing with the shameful 
scandals which associated Gov. Eden and Secretary Knight 
with the piratical adventures of Teach, Moseley and Col. 
Maurice Moore, with several other gentlemen, forcibly 
took possession of the public records in the office of John 
Lovick, the deputy Secretary ; and were thereupon arrest- 
ed by order of the Governor. This transaction is shortly 
stated by the historians, without any explanation ; and 1 
can only conjecture the key to their motives. To consider 
it a mere w^anton outburst of lawlessness, seems quite 
inconsistent with the high character which Hawks, himself, 
attributes to Moseley. The Secretary had been more than, 
suspected, and was afterwards proven, to have been tha 



24 A STUDY IX COLONIAL HISTORY. 

nccomplicp of the pirate ; and IMosele}^ and liis friends 
were fnlly persuaded of his gnilt. That he was an unlit 
custodian of the ])ul)lu' records, can admit of no donbt. 
To procure his removal from office by the Governor was 
liopeless ; for tlie Governor himself was shrewdly suspect- 
ed of being his associate in the crime. Probably it was 
an attempt to secure a public good by a short way, in a 
case whei'e redress by law was not to be expected. It is 
one of those cases v^hich meet us all along, in which we 
leel that we have heard only that part of the evidence 
Avhich tells against the accused. Moseley believed that he 
was hardly dealt with ; for he complained that "the 
Governor could raise an armed posse to arrest honest men, 
though he could not raise a similar force to apprehend 
Teach, the noted pirate." (2 Will. 11.) Andforthis say- 
ing he was prosecuted by the Governor for defamation. He 
was also indicted for the trespass, and convicted. He was 
fined one hundred pounds, silenced as an attorney, and 
declared incajjable of holding office for three years. Col, 
Moore submitted, and was fined hve pounds. It does not 
appear that the others were ever prosecuted ; and the dis- 
parity of the i3unishment in these cases renders it probable 
that Col. Moore was indicted only because he was the 
brother-in-law of Moseley And all of the cii-cumstances 
encourage a belief that, if the whole truth wei*e known it 
would apx)ear that Moseley was punished, not for the 
offence with which he was charged, but for his being a 
thorn in the side of Eden's administi'ation, as he had been 
in that of Hyde, (Mart. 1-285) with this bitter aggravation 
—that he had dared to speak out boldly his opinion about 
Eden's alleged complicity with the pirate. The Chief 
Justice, Jones, was a friend of the Governor, and a mem- 
ber of his Council ; and it was at his house that the meet- 
ing of the Council was held which exonerated Knight from 
all blame, upon testimony which leaves no doubt of his 
guilt. We are always permitted, if not morally required, 



A STUDY IN COLONIAL HISTORY. 25 

to think the best we can of a man whose high character, is 
concerled, vvlien he is brought to judgment before liis 
enemies, and wlien his judges are not above the suspicion 
of an improper bias. Hawks declares that he h)st much 
of his influence by being disbarred ; but that mode of 
dealing with obnoxious attoineys seems to )!Mve been a 
favorite one with the general court, even in unim])ortant 
cases, and with gentlemen of the highest character. For 
it appears in the few brief extiucts we have from its records 
that, in one year, Stephen Mainvvaring, Col. Wm. Wilkin- 
son and Henderson Walker, soon afterwards Attorney 
General, and Governor, were disbarred ; the two latter for 
having olfered ^'sJindry affronts to the members of this 
court." (2 Haw. 111-12.) 

On the 4th of Ap?'il 1720, Moseley presented a petition 
to the Council praying remission of his sentence. But we 
are told that he was never afterwards permitted to appear 
in any new causes, but only to try the old. (Id. 562.) In 
this there is undoubted error, and error that has no excuse; 
for on page 114 we have the full record of a cause com- 
menced the 20th of February, 1723, in which Moseley 
ajjpeai's as the attorney of record for the defendant. And 
that all these things had not impaired his reputation or his 
influence is manifest from the fact, that, in the legislature 
of 1722, while his sentence was yet in force, he was chosen 
Speaker; as also in 1723, And in 1724, when Governor 
Burrington determined .to visit the settlements then be- 
ginning to be made on the Cape Fear, considering the 
journey as equivalent to absence from the province, he 
devolved the power of Cliief Magistrate on Moseley, who 
was then Survej^or General ; and the appointment was 
confirmed by the Council. 

The boundary line between Virginia and Xorth Carolina 
had long been the subject of uncertainty and dispute ; 
and the people on the frontiers had taken grants from the 
king, or the lords jDroprietors, accordingly as the}^ guessed 



26 A STUDY IN COLONIAL III8T0KY. 

tl]H l;ni(l to be in tlie oii^ province or the other. This 
])r()(lu('e(l n ]);n)ifiil uncertainty in titles, and many nego- 
tiations aiul effoiMs liad Ix-en made for iis settlement. At 
length, ih 1727, teiins of adjustment, wliich had been 
agreed on by the two Governors, wpi'e ai)})roved by the King 
in council, and the line was oi'dered to be run. Noi-th 
Caiolina sent as her commissioners Edwaixl Moseley, 
Cliiistopher Gale, John Lovick and AVilliam Little; and 
as sui'veyoTS. Edward Moseley, and his kinsman, young 
Samuel Swann. A^iigiina also sent a commission comjiosed 
of gentlemen of fiig'n chaiacter, the best known of whom was 
Col. Byrd, of Westover. 

Before the commission met the "magnificent Virginians" 
sonnded a challenge across the border which might well 
have dismayed the simple Carolinians. On the 16th of 
December, 1728, they wrote as follows— "We think it very 
proper to acquaint you in wdiat manner we intend to come 
provided, that so you, being appointed in the same station 
may, if you please, do the same honor to j'our country. 
We shall bring with us about twenty men, furnished with 
l^rovisions for thirty days ; we shall have with us a tent 
and marquees for the convenience of ourselves and our 
servants. We bring as much wine and rum as will enable 
us and our men to drink every night to the good success 
of the following day ; and because we understand there 
are gentiles on the frontiers, who never had an opportu- 
nity of being ba^^tized, we shall have a chajdain with us to 
make them christians." 

If they had proposed to the Carolinians to bring with 
them pontoons and a wagon train, I suppose they could 
liardly have been more astonished. But their neat and 
dignified rejdy show^s that they were fully equal to the 
emergency. 

"We are at a loss, gentlemen," they say, "whether to 
thank you for the particulars you give us of your tent^ 
stores, and the manner you design to meet us. Had you 



A STUDY IN COLONIAL IIISTOKY, 27 

been silent about it, we had not wanted an excuse for not 
meeting you in the same manner ; but now^ you force us to 
expose the nakedfiess of our country, au'l to tell you we 
€annot possibly meet 3-ou iu the mariner our great respect 
for you would make ns ghid to do; whom we are not 
emulous of outdoing, unless in care and diligence in the 
affair w^e come to meet you about." 

That kef^n and quiet thrust under the guard, delivered, 
too, with all the flowing courtesy of knighthood, is 
exquisite. My lord Chesterfield could not have improved 
it. If the Virginians were as familiar with sweet Will as 
they undoubtedly were with the value of tent stores, they 
must have had an uncomfortable remembrance of Sir 
Andrew Agnecheek — ^'An I thought he had been so 
cunning in fence, Fd have seen him damned ere IVl have 
challenged him." 

But thanks to the superior skill and knowledge of 
Moseley, they were soon to enjoy a much more substantial 
triumph. 

By tlie charter the line was to run from Currituck Inlet 
due West to Weyanoke Creek, inSO^-SO' of North latitude; 
and the question disputed about was — what stream was 
meant by that name. When the commission met in 1709, 
Moseley contended that it was the Nottoway, but the 
Virginians denied that, because they made the mouth of 
Nottoway to be in 37° North, But Moseley insisted they 
made an error of half a degree, either from a defect in 
their instrument, or from want of skill in its use. The 
dispute was very important, as it covered a belt of territory 
more than twenty miles wide. "This egregious error," 
says the journal of the Carolinians, "broke off the con> 
ference, not without some w^armth, and undue reflections 
made on it b}^ Virginia." Of course. That these obscure 
individuals from the swamps and wild woods of North 
Carolina should, in a matter of scientific skill and knowl- 
edge, dare to array their oi^inion against that of the 



28 A STUDY IN COLONIAL IIISTOUY. 

a-eiitleiiKMi from A^ii'iiinia was, as Doaheri'Y says, "most 
tolerable ami not to be endured." FoiTiinately the Caro- 
linians had the courage of their o])ini()n, and lefused to 
yield. 

The meetinii' of the commissionei-s on the 5tli of Marcli, 
17:21), was an occasion of <ireat inteiest and anxiety to 
Moseley ; for he had staked his reputation on the accuracy 
of Ills obsei'vations, and much repnxu'h and obloquy had 
been (^ast upon him for liis obstinacy and conceit. And 
now the decision was to vindicate him completely, or else 
to justify his condemnation. Fortunately the Yii'ginia 
commissioners were not only men of competent skill, but 
were candid and honorable gentlemen ; and when the 
observations weie completed tliey frankly acknowledged 
that Moseley was right, and that the error he had alleged 
in reality existed. ^ 

The commissioners entered upon their work with energy 
and zeal ; and on the 14th of March the line struck the 
Great Dismal Swamp. And here they paused for anxious 
consultation. Should they make an offset and course 
around the border of the Swamp ^ Oi' should they dare 
what seemed the impossible ? Stout-hearted woodsmen as 
they were, accustomed to brave all dangers of Hood and 
forest, it was no shame to their manhood if for a space 
they stood apalled. "The line was to cross it from East 
to West; the distance was of many miles, no one knew 
how many ; it was seemingly one continuous quagmire ; no 
human being was known to them, or to the neighboring 
inhabitants, ever to have crossed it ; none of those living 
near it had ever dared to enter it ; the cattle that went in 
sank and died in its mire; and what dangerous wild 
animals might be within no one knew, for the boldest 
hunter had never ventured to follow them to their lair." 
(2 Haw. 99.) 

They might fail, with loss of reputation, perhaps of life. 
And, it was so easy and safe to take the prudent course 



A STUDY IX COLOMAL IIISTOKY. 20! 

and go around. But then — the pity of it ! HarnessHd, 
and carrying bows, to tuin back in the day of battle! 
Nevei', never. Betide what may, let the line sweep on. 

The company separated. The commissioners ^skirted the 
swamp, and in a short time arrived at the opposite point. 
The surveyors, Moseley and Swann, Irvin and Mayo, made 
their preparations for tiie dangerous venture. Provisions 
for eight days, axes, instruments, bhinkets, and otiier 
necessaries, made to each man weight enough for the open 
road ; and every foot of ground had to be fought for. At 
length all was ready, and rliey girded th'uiselves for the 
struggle. I know that they breathed a silent prayer, for 
they were christian men. And then, with three ringing 
cheeis, they dashed at the Dismal, and disappeared in its 
gloom. 

The commissioners and their men on the AYestern side 
patrolled the Swamp, and anxiously awaited the result. 
Six days passed, anc| nothing was heard. More and more 
anxiously they marched back and forth, firing tlieir guns, 
and listening for the response which never came. Eight 
days passed, ^nd still no tidings. And now all knew that 
their provisions were exhausted, and that death by famine 
was added to their dangers. Hour by hour, as time wore 
on, hope waned, and waned, and vanished, and despair 
began to chill the anxious watchers. At last, on the 
evening of the ninth day, foot-sore and weary, covered 
with mud, and his clothes torn to tatters, young Swann 
came out of the Swamp. 

He told them of the fearful ordeal through which they 
had passed ; and that on the eighth day, linding their food 
exhausted, they determined to abandon the line, and move 
by the compass straight for the highland, if perchance 
they might reach it before they perished. In the night of 
that day they heard the lowing of cattle, and knew that 
safety was nigh. On the morning of the tenth day the rest 
of the party came safe to dry land ; and after a few days 



8') A STUDY IX COLONIAL HISTORY. 

^ivHii to lefipslinipnt nnrl I'est, the surveyors Swami and 
]\f;iyo i-e-entered the Svvanij), and tlieir woi'k was nomple- 
ted. And so onr^ nioiv the ti^rors of nature yielded to 
t!i<-' Anglo Saxon's indoadtable ])lnck. 

The setrlements on the Cape Fear were now rising into 
importance, aiul IVFoseley soon turned his attention in that 
diiection. In 17^)l Gov. HuiTington sent a long dispat(di 
to the Colonial office, iti which he loundly berated a nuni- 
l)ei- of the leading nien of the colony. Tradition accounts 
toi- a ])ari of his spleen. He and Col. jMauiice Moo'e, 
with their resp^'Ctive parties, in 1724 were up the i-iver 
selecting lands for entry. They landed on Rocky Point 
together, and each insisted on his right to kwate there. 
The dispute waxed hotter and hotter, until they drew 
th«'ir swords, and were about to submit it to a bloody 
arbitrament, when their followers intertered, and kept the 
pi^ace. Col. Moore nuuntained his foothold, and patented 
Kocky Point : and lived and died there. Burrington went 
fui'ther up the river, and located 10,()0() acres at the place 
which Capt. Hilton, sixty years before, had named Stag 
Paik, and which bears the name to this day. 

In this dispach Burrington says — ''About twenty men 
are settled on the Cape E^ear from South Carolina ; among 
them are three brothers of a noted family, whose name is 
Moore. These people were always troublesome where they 
came from, and will doubtless be so here. Messengers are 
constantly going and coming from Moseley and this crew '' 
(Wheeler, Early Times and Men of the Albemarle.) Mose- 
ley had taken up large tracts ot land on the Northeast 
Kiver, and about the year 1735 he brought hither his 
famil}^ and fortunes, and settled a plantation a few miles 
from Rocky Point, which bears to this day the name of 
Moseley Hall. And there he made his home until his 
death. 

He had long been Surveyor General of the Province, and 
his triumph over the Virginia commissioners, and over the 



A STUDY IN COLONIAL IIISTOKY. 8^ 

dangers and ditficulries of the ])ismal Swamp, liad given 
liim a givat lejintatiorL And when the boundary was r() 
be established between tlie two Carolinas in 1738 he was 
again chosen a cornniissioner for North Carolina, his col- 
leagues being two other distinguished men of the (Jaj)e 
Fear, Mattliew Rowan and Col. Robert Halton. And 
again in 1743, when the line between Lord Carteret and 
the Crown was run, and w lich is still known as Eail 
Granville's line, he acted asconitnissioner for Lord Carteret, 
who aftei-wai'ds became Earl (xi-anville. And it may be 
worth while to mention, as c()m})limHnta. y to our fore- 
fathers, that out of the eight commissionei'S (diosen for that 
woik, four on each side, six were residents of the Cape 
Fear Moseley was then ap])ointed the land agent by 
Lord Carteret, and acted as such until he died. In 1746, 
he was by an act of the legislature appointed a commis- 
sioner, togetlier with his kinsman Samuel Swann, then 
become a very distinguished lawyer, and two other genr 
tlemen, to compile and revise the ■ tatute law. Moseley 
and Swann alone entered upon this work, but Moseley did 
not live to linish it. After his deach it was completed by 
Swann, and is the book known as Swann' s Revisal. At 
the session of the legislature in 1748, being then the public 
Treasurer for the Southern part of the Province, he was 
nuide chairman of a committee to make, sign, and issue, bills 
of credit of the State, for the purpose of building forts on 
the Cape Fear and Neuse, and of paying the public debt. 
I suppose that he did not take any part in this work, as he 
died in the latter part of that year, or the first of 1749, 
universally esteemed, honored and beloved. He was twice 
married. His first wife was Ann, widow of Gov. Hender- 
son Walker, and daughter of Maj. Alexander Lillington, 
by whom he had two sons — Col. Sampson Moseley, who 
was quite distinguished in the civil and military service of 
the State at the revolution ; and Edward Moseley. His 
second wife was Ann Hasell, sister of James Hasell, who 



S2 A STUDY IX OOLOXIAL TllSi'OliV. 

was actinf!; Goveinoi* of tlie province in 1771 ; by whom 
also lie had n laig^ family of sons and dau,iJi:lUers. 

Seein<j: then that for nioie than foity yeai's he was almost 
without intermission in the public service, and employed 
in the dischai'^e of most important duties, it may be in- 
fenvd that lit- was a man of no ordinary chaiactei-. And 
indexed so he was. Even Hawks, who has no charity— I 
will not speak of justice — for Carey's adheients, is coni- 
pelled by a sense of truth to <lo some justice to j\Io-"ley, 
even while attributing his actions to nnwortliy motives. 
He was a man of eminent abilities, of varied knowledge, 
of sincere piety, of unstained vii'tue, of great learning, 
and of cultivated taste. In the accpiiivments wliich per- 
tained to his impoi'tant ottice of Surveyor (Tenei-al, we 
have seen his pieetninence. Asa lawyer, he had no supe- 
rior, and I doubt whether he had an equal, in the prov- 
ince. Many yeai'S ago 1 had the op])ortunity to examine 
the wreck (^f his libiary after nioie than a hundred years 
of accident, neglect, and plunder had i)reyed ui)on it. Its 
mutilation was painfully ai)parent; but enough was left to 
excite my wonder, and my admijation foi* the man, who, 
in the wilds of a new country, not shunning the activit3^ 
incident to its life, but always and everywdiere a leader 
among men, had yel the generous taste to gather around 
him a library whi(;h would do ci'edit to any gentleman of 
our day ; and every volume of which had to l)e brought 
from England with great expense and trouble. 

''Gale, the Chief Justice, Little, the Attorney General, 
and Moseley, were undoubtedly the three best lawyers of 
Carolina in the pro])i'ietary times ; and all were ready and 
active in their efforts to give to the people the blessings and 
benelits of relig'ous instru(^tion. Among our old ecclesi- 
astical documents we hnd Moseley in another aspect than 
that of lawyer and politician. We hnd him in communi- 
cation with the Missionary Society, informing them of the 
irue state of religion Jimong the i)eople, and begging them 



A STUDY IN COLONIAL HISTOEY. 33 

to send missionaries of the proper kind. But he did more 
than this. He was as ready with his purse as with his 
pen. He sent to England and purchased prayer books, as 
well as works of practical religion, for gratuitous distribu- 
tion in Carolina ; and not content with this, he boughc also 
quite a library, the catalogue of which is now before us, 
and presented it to the "Society for Propagating the 
Gospel," as the foundation of a provincial library, to be 
deposited in Edenton for general use. Most of these books 
were well selected and costly." (2 Hawks 358-9.) 

And again — "Gale, Little, Moseley, and Swann, were 
all men who would have been deemed fit associates for the 
most intelligent men to be found in any of the English colo- 
nies of their day." (Id. 369.) And he might have added 
that any, and all of them, could have moved without dis- 
credit in the politest circles of England, and not felt them- 
selves as strangers there. 

How is it then, that such a man as Moseley could have 
been so much engaged in violent strife and contention with 
the public authorities ? With all his learning, and dignity, 
and virtue, was he no better than a brawler, and stirrer up 
of sedition!! Hawks says not — "The little that has here- 
tofore been recorded in history of Mr. Moseley would leave 
of him no better impression than that he was a factious 
man of acknowledged ability, who could find little use for 
his talents save that of stirring up strife, and encouraging 
contention for ends purely selfish. We do not think this 
was his true character." (2 Haw. 359.) 

So. And was he troubled by no faint, whispering sug- 
gestion, that the little which he has preserved, and the more 
which he has imagined, about the friends with whom 
Moseley was so closel}^ allied, and whom he loved and 
cherished, might wrong them even more in the judgment 
of posterity ? 

What then was Moseley' s true motive in the conduct 
which brought down upon him all the hatred of the gov- 



34 A STUDY IN- COLO:?Nrix\L HISTORY. 

ernment, and all the venom of malicious tongues ? Hawks 
declares liis inability to discover it ; and can make no more 
plausible conjectui-e than tliat it was tlie mutual dislike 
that existed between him and tlie leading su])porters of 
Gov. Hyde. (Id. 521.) 

I do not wonder. From Hawks' point of view Moseley's 
conduct was incomprehensible. 

Perhaps it may be worth while hereafter to consider 
whether its secret is not to be found in a passionate devo- 
tion to the right of self-government, and a passionate 
hatred of the authority of the lords xjroprietors — that pes- 
tilent source of so much misrule and oppression. Perhaps 
it may be worth while hereafter to question the justice of 
that judgment which consecrates the memory of Nathaniel 
Bacon as the proto martyr of American liberty ; and de- 
nies to Edward Moseley even the poor charity of pardon 
and oblivion. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

UPH 

w W14 419 916 9 A 




014 4 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




00144199169 ^ 



